tv [untitled] January 28, 2012 8:48pm-9:18pm PST
impact? that is unknown on a host of details where this language is included. supervisor campos: this letter talks about mitigation. it talks about monitoring. it talks about restoration's that need to take place. it focuses specifically on the municipal and transportation agency in the port of san francisco. it talks about how you are talking about two agencies that are already facing their own financial to lounges. you have a budget deficit within the mta. you have other challenges the board of cent -- the port of san francisco has. the idea -- that becomes more challenging. can you provide more detail on
that? >> on the specific measures, jennifer cleary is here. she is more familiar with those aspects of the corporate -- of the project. there are lots of impacts that are significant but unavoidable. the way to approve the project, given that, is to do the statement of overriding considerations that they outweigh the harm. those are tied to the amount of money generated from the spectators who are going to be here. you have cut a reduction in the estimate for the number of spectators. the money is not going to be there. what are the benefits to the city? that is more of a policy question, but it is something that is required by ceqa. it is enough of an environmental review question that i wanted to point it out.
supervisor campos: thank you. supervisor avalos: a follow-up. if you could amplify your statement about the change we have seen in the number of spectator and supply vessels that were in the d-eir? you mentioned we would have to report back to the numbers of the earlier version, which have been thrown out. >> the draft eir had projected large numbers of spectators both on the bay and on the land side. the notion was that there would be lots of money being spent by people coming into san francisco, just being out and about, coming in from all corners of the area to view the spectacular race. there is no doubt it is a spectacular race. but it is hard to enjoy it as a spectator sport. the more recent information, reflected in the final report,
is there are not many people who come to these kinds of events. that are hard to see. they are way out on the water. the economic benefit goes down. the money available to do negation measures is not going to be there, as it was expected in the draft eir. if those negations are not done, because they are not feasible, the impact will be more severe than predicted. the draft eir based its conclusions on the notion those medications would be in place. you have a very confusing -- a very confusing document which does not give anyone a clear look at what the impacts of the project are going to be. you have this wild card in the deck of negations that are only going to be adopted if feasible. we do not know if the money is growing to be there. we do not know how many people will show up. it looks like not many, compared to the original projections.
you have kind of a mess on your hands, is the simple way to put it. supervisor avalos: have you seen other estimates of vessels on the bay that you feel are more accurate? >> i am not going to address the accuracy of either set of estimates. the draft eir had a set of estimates. the final eir had another which was 80% lower. i do not have a crystal ball to know what estimates will be accurate here. supervisor avalos: you are touching upon one of the things that has been my big concern from the get go about the america's cup. september of 2010, we first had a term sheet agreement that was a pre agreement. already, there was a economic analysis which showed there would be $1.40 billion of
economic activity, huge benefits, jobs that are available. it seemed like a great thing, moving down the way to providing a great deal of benefits to the bay area. i did not support the original agreement to begin with, because i felt it was too good to be true. we had the term sheet come before us again in december of that year. as chair of the budget committee, i worked toward trying to assure that we were not using a lot of public funds to support the race. we are trying to minimize the impact to the general fund. i felt confident we have done that. the numbers changed after that. the board had approved a term sheet. by december 31, there was a
question about whether there were material changes. i have seen in the process move on the approval of all the different permits. you are trying to make every hoop go through. i lo at the change in the number of vessels. i am confused that we are seeing the same process again. there are a large number of vessels in conformance that focus on having real economic benefits. we have to look at environmental impacts like their quality. we are now getting a lower number of vessels.
i have a lot of concern about whether we are mckean the numbers changed on the assumptions. these are things we have had concerns about through the whole process of the america's cup. i supported it in december of 2010. i am not sure what i want to do with it now. there is a specter of huge economic benefit that could support us. i do not know how many people in my district are going to see real benefit to what we see in america's cup. that is what i am going to proceed with debate. i appreciate the work you have done on this. >> i really appreciate the
presentation. i think supervisor of los raised a couple of issues. we both sat on the board with johanna at the mayor's office. i know the suspension of shoreside power is a key issue. could you go into a little more detail about what obligations we have as a city under the regional air district report to mitigate these environmental impact in an event like this. we need to talk a little bit more about our obligations to fulfill the regulations of the board. >> i have not studied the regulations to answer the question. i will tell you undersea "what your obligations are. some of these impacts are still being significant.
once that is done, your obligations are clear under ceqa. you have to mitigate those to the maximum extent feasible. hear, that has not been done. for instance, talking about the mitigation program requires payments into a fund that replaces old diesel engines with clean diesel engines. is it feasible? the air quality management district says it is. the rationale for why it is it is supported by the case law. the planning department says it is not. their rationale is not supported by the case law. it is pretty clear the city will not fulfill its legal obligations if it proceeds without logic. it is just one example, there are others. >> the mitigation of pier 70's
new shoreside power -- you are saying it is speculative and and feasible, given we do not have funding for it? -- it speculative and unfeasible, given we do not have funding for it? >> if you look at the planning department memo in response to the air quality district collector, on page 4, they say the increase in air pollution as a result of having 40 cruise ships at pier 27 instead of 12 is going to be offset, because we are going to get shoreside power at pier 70. we're going to get shoreside power at pier 70. on the next page, page 5, they say it is ok to say that the impact isyou cannot have it bot.
president chiu: any other questions? ok, thank you, and at this point, why do we not hear from members of the public wish to speak on behalf of the appellant? if i could ask all of you who wish to speak on behalf of the appellate, he could line up in the far right eye of this board chamber. if there are those who are elderly or disabled or parents with small children, feel free to go to the front of the line so that we can hear from you sooner than later. why do we not hear from our first speaker? >> of what did thank you for taking the time to hear us today. we really appreciate the city staff and all of their cooperation over the past month, but we had some very specific questions off the process, and that is, what do we need to do, how do we identify what the problems are, how do we mitigate
those problems, and who is going to be responsible? we have comment on every single plan and every single draught, and then coming to the end, which saw the monitoring program, and it still did not answer the questions, because virtually every mitigation measure has a split responsibility between the event authority and one of the city departments, and so, seeing that, we still do not understand who is actually going to do what, and then you have to fall back on the venue agreement, which says that the city is going to be responsible for all costs of the environmental review, and so my assumption then is that every measure for which the city is one of the main parties, the city is physically responsible, and i think the difficulty with that is that in the venue agreement, in all of the discussions we have had, the significant cost of that mitigation has not been brought into the discussion, so
the power is going to cost report millions, which they will use the revenue bonds to finance domestic find out another way. i am sorry. was it just one minute. president chiu: it is two minutes. >> it is maybe another 1 million, $1.5 million if the airport comes in, the national park service is going to require $10 million, $15 million to mitigate their issues. for the america's cup and other medications, it is apparently $40 million, so that is a big number. thank you. president chiu: thank you, miss cleary. next speaker. >> i am a member of the swimming public, and i just wanted to clarify one thing for the public and the board of supervisors. this is the only protected cove on the entire waterfront, where
open waters swimmers from san francisco or anywhere in the world can swim without being subject to the more dangerous tides and currents outside of aquatics park. as a result, almost anyone who wants to do some water swimming, whether they are -- we have a lot of english channel swimmers who train there. we also adjust that mothers and kids to play on the beach, and anywhere in between. i am just in recreational swimmer. we need aquatic park if we are going to swim anywhere in the city at all. you may have heard of some of us to do swim outside the cove, who might swim from alcatraz or from your 7. we always have to end our swims inside aquatic park because that is a protected place where we can get out of the water and get warm, so i am specifically very concerned about the jumbotron, because the jumbotron plan was very fuzzy when put together by
the developers, and the way the jumbotron is in the actual in carnival impact report that has been done, it was very fuzzy and very big on its analysis of the jumbotron. and basically did not consider the public health consequences at all, the possibility of stirring up sentiment -- sediment. my concern is if the jumbotron is put up without any further analysis, required by the board of supervisors, basically oprah mourners swimming in san francisco is not even born to be possible. it will be destroyed entirely. i do not think that is an exaggeration. thank you. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> thank you, supervisors. i am the executive director of the golden gate audubon society. we represent more than 10,000 members to work concerned about the impact this project will have on wildlife.
we have participated in this appeal not to oppose the america's cup but because we believe that habitat and wildlife need an increased level of protection. san francisco bay is a globally significant site for millions of shorebirds and water birds, and it is our hope that this product can be -- a project can be improved to reduce the impact. the eir fails to adequately identified impacts and measures. it does not adequately identify the impacts to birds. the issue better assess the impact to wire but on land and especially in the open water. by contrast, a recent review of published and unpublished studies show that 86% of human cost disturbances of impact on shorebirds and waterboards on the bay. many of these disturbances caused the birds to fly, preventing them from foraging. these studies to say that even minor flushing can affect their
survivability. it is said the disturbances will be minor and projects that they will be mitigated. second, it proposes insufficient mitigation measures. for example, the eir proposes fencing but does not identify where that will occur, how it will be installed, or what impacts may be arising from that itself. there is an notice to boaters brochure. while this may help, strong mitigation in the form of monitoring and an adaptive system is needed. i would like to emphasize that we're talking about the sentences, but, a sight of global importance or the shore birds and water birds, and the only way to do that is a brochure. finally, eir should include adaptive management. may i conclude? president chiu: thank you very much. next speaker.
>> good afternoon. i am president of the dolphin club and also an architect and resident of san francisco for 32 years. president chiu and members of the board, thank you for the opportunity to address the issue with regard to both the dolphins club and others met has submitted a joint letter that is in support of the america's cup, but by virtue of some of our concerns, we knew our members who are opposed to what is being proposed at aquatic park is by virtue something that we really feel strongly against. we have members here, from both clubs, but i wouldn't like to read these stand to insure representation of our support. by which we have, and many be clear, we are not party to the appeals, that have been filed,
but we share common interests of not having the bards or jumbotron installed in the waters of the aquatic park. the dolphins club was formed in the 1870's and has existed over 130 years and have for the last century and swam in a quiet part. our clubs are open to the general public, both visitors and out of town, and additionally serve as a public resource as a neighborhood polling station during elections. pharmacy and history has evolved to be stored for a quiet part. we are excited about the america's cup and the overall event, but we have concerns about the analysis and mitigation and alternatives in the final eir. eir fails to assess or respond to the impact of aquatic park as it relates to public safety and recreation. the dolphin and south and clubs,
speakers that are coming up to represent our members and stand behind our message. thank you very much. president chiu: thank you very much. next speaker. >> president, members of the board, my name is chris. i am a resident of san francisco and a board member of the south and rowing club. i oppose the placement of a barge on three-point. first, following up on meese's point, a chronic parking is a pre-eminent cold water training ground for swimmers in north america. swimmers from all over the world come here to train. placing a diesel generator in the coat is like idling a muni bus at a basketball game and telling them to increase through their journeys and terrible around the bus. no athletes should have to argue for clean air in which to train. this is a sanctuary. as a former alaska fishermen,
and witnessed the ill effects of two diesel spills, one of which i created myself. i was at the epicenter of a sheen until i am sure it spread to be visible from space, not my finest moment, but disasters on the water are like that. they are all or nothing. we just saw the s -- costa concordia, and if there is an accident, once built with one swimmer is a catastrophe. that is just the nature of the effort that we expand on the water. finally, much emphasis is placed on the blow through design of the screen itself, demonstrating how this cannot sit in the wind. does anyone realize what you are creating? you are creating a curtainwall in a aquatic park. you're talking about an inch of object and the whips of this room that does not swing at its mooring line, the way every cell boa does. if you are a sailboat in
distress, your blood sugar drops, you are cold, and you have to plot a chart home immediately. if you are sending a swimmer in distress towards a brick wall with the water running against them, it is a recipe for a drowning. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> president's chiu, members of the board, my name is diane walton. i live in san francisco. i have the privilege of serving as the boat captain at the dolphin club, and i come to you to discuss something that happily has been raised by presidents chiu and addressed by the attorney, which is in sedimentation in the creation of the magic of the jumbotron. the eir, the final eir, does not adequately address the activity that would have to happen and does not begin to speak to mitigation, and you know, you
betcha a chance here to make that different. the analysis needs to either be deeper or be done, and i just think that the bay is not the place to take short cuts under the rubric of temporary activities, and that is for you to take on. thank you. >> good afternoon, my name is bill, a member of the rowing club, a past president, san francisco residents, and my purpose here today is just to register some surprise that the lack of alternatives that were proposed for the jumbotron. it is sort of a sole source or i guess solution approach that was submitted, and we feel that there were other alternatives that should be properly considered because of the impact of this object that is point replaced in our backyard. the structure is essentially the
size of two clubs located at aquatic park, the outline of it, someone alternative we thought is perhaps it could be made smaller and perhaps divided up into two jumbotrons. and looking at the plaza, the jumbotron there, or over at the parker, the jumbotron could actually be put on land, and we feel the that perhaps could be the best solution of all of them, or perhaps, do we really need the jumbotron approved because this large object obscures' the venue from which these sailboats are performing, and perhaps people could just watch it on television at home. perhaps that is the simplest and most economic approach, our purpose here today is to support in general the plan for the america's cup but ask that the jumbotron be sent back for review. thank you. president chiu: thank you.
next speaker. >> this afternoon, your honors. my name is kenneth. i am the vice president of the dolphins club. i speak today as a is member of 30 years at occoquan park rove and a supporter of the america's cup races. my problem with the jumbotron is that it presents an easy, when a ball it winnable. it will delay the races. it is not a brick wall. it is a sail. it is two stories by four stories. when you take the course of the wind on an object, and you double the speed of the wind, you quadruple the force of the wind. aquatic park experience is regularly force six wins or better. that is almost up to 30 miles per hour. that is easy almost every
afternoon during the racing season. these are not conditions for placing an immovable sail that will experience over 1 ton of sustained force. this thing, we do not know if it is quite typical or not. no analysis has been done. first of all, there is no evidence anywhere that this has been tried before. the best comparison planning has come up with is a screen that is commonly used for short-term outdoor use and temporary concert venues. these menus are not on water. temporary use is not be one year that planning recognizes. i urge the board to deny an easy writ. take the jumbotron out or send this back to planning for considerations of the races can go forward. thank you. president chiu: thank you.
next speaker. >> good afternoon, my name is kathy. i am a 10-year member of a club and also a board member. thank you very much for listening to the concerns as expressed by my fellow members of the two clubs this afternoon. i want to repeat as they have also pointed out that we definitely support the america's cup event in general. we value and greatly enjoyed the bay, and we certainly are welcoming to others you might also injuring debate through this event, but we do, as you heard, continue to have significant concerns, specifically regarding the jumbotron. these concerns are based on our longstanding and ongoing personal familiarity with the bay, and we strongly challenged the attitude that the jumbotron will not significantly affect aquatic park. there will be a significant impact, and the fact that these are considered temporary does not excuse the failure to
address these and any way. the statements by the planning department purported to address the jumbotron are in attica. they fail to demonstrate any expertise or understanding of the recreational use of aquatic park. there seems to a been a testing or analysis of the impacts. my fellow club members of come here today as the primary recreational users of aquatic park on behalf of ourselves and the general public to tell you that there will be significant impacts. as earlier stated by the gentleman in support of the appeal, if the jumbotron goes in, people should not be swimming at aquatic park. i echo my fellow members' request that they approve the eir without the jumbotron or put it back for analysis about the potential impacts as well as
considering realistic alternatives. there has been no consideration whatsoever of alternatives, and that is also called for. thank you. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, president chiu and members of the board. i live in the richmond district. as a sailor myself, i am looking forward to watching others navigate the sometimes treacherous currents of the bay. i also swim in the bay, in the dead of winter, without a wetsuit, of my own free will. i love it more than anything in the world, and so do hundreds of others people. every day, we swim in the cove, to bits and exercise and even cavort with our see friends. -- sea